Nikon Cameras - Question on cameras and lenses

[RyanVolle]

I would like to know what model of Nikon Cameras is best for plants and scenery such as mountains and forests.

Which of the DX or FX format is better?

[Teljkon]

dfgdf

Edited December 19, 2021 by Teljkon

[btotl]

The camera isn't necessarily the important part its the lens.

For Good plant close ups and macros i'd go with around a 100mm lens

and for scenery and landscape you'd want a more wide angle lens 35mm to 18mm are usually considered wide angle.

usually the more expensive the lens the better quality sharper and more clarity.

[myco]

i have a nikon d7000

great camera but i need to get a new lens for macro shots

all i have is the lens that came with it wich is the nikon 18 - 105

its not bad for landscapes wich is wat i use it for but i would like a wider angle

just remember lenses are very expensive

so be careful and make sure you buy the right lens for wat you wanna take shots of

to save you having to buy to many different lenses

also try and go for a sigma or one of the generic brand lenses to

just as good a qaulity if not better and half the price

you can get some good wide angle lenses wich you'll still be able to get atleast 1:1 with

so you can get decent macro shots aswell as the lens being great for landscapes

just make sure you do alot of reading up on the subject before you go buying lenses as i said they can be very very expensive

[occidentalis]

For landscapes full frame (FX) is definitely better

In fact, FX is 'better' for everything.

However - full frame cameras are much bigger and heavier, and they are MUCH more expensive. The lenses are also more expensive.

It's a trade off between size, weight, and cost, and how much you really need a full frame sensor. If you aren't sure, go DX - unless you have money to burn.

[myco]

full frame arent necessarily alot more expensive

in the case of nikon yes they are

as i said i have the nikon d7000 wich has the smaller APS-C sensor

this camera retails at about $1700 with the nikon 18 - 105 lens this is a 16 MP camera

and about $1400 for just the body

the next model up with nikon for full frame is i think $6000

and is either 12 or 16 MP so qaulity wise its no different

however if you were to go with canon you could get the canon 5d mk II

for about $3000 wich is full frame and something like 21 MP

in my opinion full frame is not necessary especially for wat the op seems to want to do mainly macro

basically full frame sensor equivilates to 35mm film

having a full frame camera doesnt mean better qaulity

it simply means you can get more in the frame

wich can be helpfull especially with landscapes

however a decent wide angle lens capable of doing atleast 1:1

with a camera that only has a smaller size APS-C sensor

will be perfectly fine for macro and landscapes

[occidentalis]

It does mean more quality, because the size of each pixel is larger - I won't bother going into the technical details, but that means you get better high ISO performance and better IQ

more MP does not equal better quality, as I'm sure you know. What matters is how much space those pixels are squished on to, and in the case of a full frame sensor the same number of pixels will give better quality as the individual pixels will be larger.

you'll get more in the frame if you're using an FX lens, which is definitely the go for landscapes. for macros, not a big deal as usually you'll be zooming fairly close. However you will still get an advantage in image quality.

anyway, i think we agree

DX is probably better suited for the OP - the fact that he has to ask means his photography is probably not at the FX stage.

But - the fact that he is asking means he wants an answer, so I gave it to him ;)

[myco]

my apolagies

after some more research it seems you are correct

its kinda wierd cos it almost seems to not make sense you would think if the pixels are larger

you would be losing qaulity maybe im missing something i dunno hahaha

but your right about that

and yes i think we can all agree that full frame isnt necessary for the op

in fact i can safely say i know alot of proffessional photographers

including my girlfriend her mother and many other people and i can say that most proffesionals dont even use full frame cameras

the ones that do are mainly people who do landscape photography

in my opinion unless you are a proffessional and are making money from your photo's

theres no need to spend thousands of dollars on a full frame camera even if you are its not completely necessary

or even a good DSLR if you dont know wat your doing with settings and things dont waste your money

you could go for something like the d3100 wich is i think only around $500 now

however with that being said

i make money from my photos wich are mostly landscapes

and some more arty kinda shots and i dont use a full frame camera

its more about knowing how to set your camera to get a good shot in my opinion

thanks for clarifying that for me though occidentalis i could never really figure out wat the deal was with that

and wat i said earlier was kinda just the conclusion i had come to from wat i had read but you proved me wrong and i learnt something new so thanks

[occidentalis]

no problem, it's a complex subject and I'm happy to help clarify ;)

its kinda wierd cos it almost seems to not make sense you would think if the pixels are larger

you would be losing qaulity maybe im missing something i dunno hahaha

pixel is actually an incorrect term to use here

the correct term is photosite, which are tiny sensor elements which collect the light that becomes each pixel

on screen, the pixels will still be displayed at the same size as normal (based on your screen resolution), so there's no loss of quality there or when you print

however the photosite is larger, which means it has better signal:noise ratio so the quality of each pixel is better

in my opinion unless you are a proffessional and are making money from your photo's

theres no need to spend thousands of dollars on a full frame camera even if you are its not completely necessary

or even a good DSLR if you dont know wat your doing with settings and things dont waste your money

you could go for something like the d3100 wich is i think only around $500 now

 

yeah i agree

in fact I would take it a step further and say most people don't even need an SLR at all

check out the micro 4/3 and other compact mirrorless cameras that are coming out. I'm particularly interested in the fuji x10 and x100, but for many photographic beginners a canon G12 or S100 or a Panasonic LX5 are quite sufficient and can be had for $600 or less

these cameras are small and light and don't have interchangeable lenses, but shoot raw and have full manual controls

it's not the same as shooting with an SLR but when I travel now I just take my LX3 because I usually can't be bothered lugging the SLR and all the lenses.